Philosophical debate produces wonderful intelllectual gymnastics, but one thing it doesnt produce are answers. It produces problems and perplexity (Socrates demonstrates this in the Euthyphro; another good example in the history of philosophy can be found in the more speculative thought of Heidegger). Philosophers who claim to "answer" philosophical questions through the "powers of thought" are deluding themselves: whereas pyschology can be grounded in empirical investigation, the same cannot be said of philosophy.

"Answers", so to speak, are only produced when we begin with certain presuppositions: for instance, the presupposition of empiricism by natural sciences, and by pyschology. Philosophy, on the other hand, although it certainly has its presuppositions, continually overturns these presuppositions. Lacking this definitive frame of reference, philosophy therefore fails to produce "answers" in the sense of the natural sciences. Of course, from a philosophical perspective, the answers of the natural sciences should be accepted only on the grounds that one accepts their given presuppositions.